Farage launches Brexit Party

Status
Not open for further replies.

Spinney

Bimbleur extraordinaire
Location
Under the Edge
Then why did both main parties say they would honour the vote in their manifestos.
Yep that one the one where the government put a leaflet through people’s letters boxes urging them to stay.
Don’t you feel a little uncomfortable with the way that the establishment are trying to make sure Brexit never happens ?
1) When those manifestos were written, the criminal activity had not all come to light. Labour have a 'leaver' as leader, the Tories could not afford not to be seen to implement Brexit or their party would have fallen apart. The actions of our two main parties do not legitimise the breaking of electoral rules, blatant lying by campaigners, or the disenfranchisement of some of the people most affected.

2) What's that got to do with it? Was that illegal?

3) Not in the slightest. The responsible members of the establishment don't want to make such a huge change to the country, that all predictions say will be detrimental to some degree (depending what might be finally agreed), based on an illegal vote, without allowing the people to say whether or not they are sure they want what is actually on offer, as opposed to the unicorns that were promised.

Don't you feel a little uncomfortable at politicians and others wanting to force through Brexit - even advocating for a hugely damaging 'no-deal' - when polling indicates that this may no longer be what the majority of the population want?
 
Last edited:

Spinney

Bimbleur extraordinaire
Location
Under the Edge
Do you have a point?

Edit: this was in response to @Pale Rider 's post here, which quoted two of my posts with no further comment.
 
Last edited:
Then why did both main parties say they would honour the vote in their manifestos.
I'm not sure they did. I'm told the Labour party never directly said it, just implied it. Not having a copy of the manifesto I'm not able to check this.

Don’t you feel a little uncomfortable with the way that the establishment are trying to make sure Brexit never happens ?
I'm far from convinced that the establishment is doing any such thing: the chief Brexit leaders are all pretty establishment, as are many opponents. I'd say they are as split as everyone else.

What makes me uncomfortable is that 4 million people can be excluded from a vote, which then is clearly won by illegal means, and the vote is still supposed to be "Honoured".
 
You mean the 'democratic vote' in which many people most affected were disenfranchised because it was only 'advisory', where the Leave campaign broke electoral rules designed to ensure fairness, and where the politicians on the Leave side came out with promises that they either had no intention of keeping, or knew could not be delievered.
You mean that democratic vote?
Funny how that question never gets answered, except with "Well, you disenfranchised yourself by living out of the UK. That shows you aren't committed to the country."

Which I usually answer by pointing out that according to this argument, EU nationals in the UK should be allowed to vote.

Whereupon there is silence.
 
Last edited:

icowden

Senior Member
Location
Surrey
Funny how that question never gets answered, except with "Well, you disenfranchised yourself by living out of the UK. That shows you aren't comitted to the country."

Which I usually answer by pointing out that according to this argument, EU nationals in the UK should be allowed to vote.

Whereupon there is silence.
It's a bit like that other favourite canard, "To have another referendum would be undemocratic". Aside from the implicit irony in that statement, it also strongly suggests that leavers think they won't win a second referendum - i..e they have no confidence that "the people" still think that leaving is a good idea.

Marinyork, I agree with you. You either make it about UK Citizens in which case ALL uk citizens get to vote regardless of where they live, OR it's about UK residents which means anyone living in the UK regardless of nationality. To try to cut it both ways is another example of electoral fiddling.
 

LinchPin

Veteran
Location
Recovery tent.
1) When those manifestos were written, the criminal activity had not all come to light. Labour have a 'leaver' as leader, the Tories could not afford not to be seen to implement Brexit or their party would have fallen apart. The actions of our two main parties do not legitimise the breaking of electoral rules, blatant lying by campaigners, or the disenfranchisement of some of the people most affected.

2) What's that got to do with it? Was that illegal?

3) Not in the slightest. The responsible members of the establishment don't want to make such a huge change to the country, that all predictions say will be detrimental to some degree (depending what might be finally agreed), based on an illegal vote, without allowing the people to say whether or not they are sure they want what is actually on offer, as opposed to the unicorns that were promised.

Don't you feel a little uncomfortable at politicians and others wanting to force through Brexit - even advocating for a hugely damaging 'no-deal' - when polling indicates that this may no longer be what the majority of the population want?
1) I've seen no serious campaign by MPs to call the whole thing off because criminal activity, 70K fine for spending too much.
2) Seems a bit rich to have leave and remain tied to spending limits while the government can put a remain leaflet through the door. Legal or not it stinks.
3) "detrimental to some degree" would include "longer queues at the airport" to "destruction of financial services industry". All these doom and gloom stories haven't really come to much so far.

I'm more uncomfortable with having a political system where they're refusing to implement the referendum result.
As an ordinary voter what else do we have other than an opportunity to voice our opinion through the ballot box.
Maybe we should just leave it to those who know best ?

I know the racist stupid proles got it wrong but best foot forward and all that.
 

LinchPin

Veteran
Location
Recovery tent.
I'm not sure they did. I'm told the Labour party never directly said it, just implied it. Not having a copy of the manifesto I'm not able to check this.

.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/labour-manifesto-2017-full-text/
CHAPTER 02 – NEGOTIATING BREXIT

Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first. We will prioritise jobs and living standards, build a close new relationship with the EU, protect workers’ rights and environmental standards, provide certainty to EU nationals and give a meaningful role to Parliament throughout negotiations.
I'm far from convinced that the establishment is doing any such thing: the chief Brexit leaders are all pretty establishment, as are many opponents. I'd say they are as split as everyone else.

What makes me uncomfortable is that 4 million people can be excluded from a vote, which then is clearly won by illegal means, and the vote is still supposed to be "Honoured".
I think it's obvious they're kicking the can down the road for as long as possible.
Either so there's a choice between "remain" and "the worst possible interpretation of brexit" in another peoples/confirmation/affirmation vote or something that's Brexit in name only.
 

Spinney

Bimbleur extraordinaire
Location
Under the Edge
1) I've seen no serious campaign by MPs to call the whole thing off because criminal activity, 70K fine for spending too much.
2) Seems a bit rich to have leave and remain tied to spending limits while the government can put a remain leaflet through the door. Legal or not it stinks.
3) "detrimental to some degree" would include "longer queues at the airport" to "destruction of financial services industry". All these doom and gloom stories haven't really come to much so far.

I'm more uncomfortable with having a political system where they're refusing to implement the referendum result.
As an ordinary voter what else do we have other than an opportunity to voice our opinion through the ballot box.
Maybe we should just leave it to those who know best ?

I know the racist stupid proles got it wrong but best foot forward and all that.
1) Neither have I, and that is worrying, don't you think? They appear to be happy to accept the referendum result because it suits their own agendas.
3) That's because we haven't left yet. There have been economic impacts and job losses.

I'm uncomfortable with a political system that seems bent on implementing the bare referendum result, without refernce to it's illegality, apparently without being bothered that it will not achieve the promises made during the referendum campaign - in fact, in the case of many of the Tories, seeing it as an opportunity to dismantle worker's rights, environmental protections etc.

In fact the Tories aren't refusing to implement it. They just cannot agree on what it should be. I'm very uncomforable indeed in having the country being run by a party that seems bent on putting party first and the country second.
 

LinchPin

Veteran
Location
Recovery tent.
It's a bit like that other favourite canard, "To have another referendum would be undemocratic". Aside from the implicit irony in that statement, it also strongly suggests that leavers think they won't win a second referendum - i..e they have no confidence that "the people" still think that leaving is a good idea.

Marinyork, I agree with you. You either make it about UK Citizens in which case ALL uk citizens get to vote regardless of where they live, OR it's about UK residents which means anyone living in the UK regardless of nationality. To try to cut it both ways is another example of electoral fiddling.
It's undemocratic in that the losers want to keep having another vote until they win.
Theresa May has done it with her Withdrawl Deal vote or do we think once they agree to it she'll do a few more votes on it for luck.
The MPs were excited when voting against no-deal passed with one casting vote and the vote of some criminal, why haven't they had that vote again?

We've had 3 years of telling us how bad leaving the EU would be so it's not surprising that there's a feeling that leave would lose for a second time.
Although I'd have expected the leave vote to have collapsed by now but it seems to have held up pretty well considering.
 
It's undemocratic in that the losers want to keep having another vote until they win.
The argument another vote would be "undemocratic" doesn't hold if the original vote excludes 4 million people who will be affected, where clear evidence that one side broke the law results in the vote being declared void. As @Spinney says, the very fact politicians are keeping quiet about this is worrying in itself.

We've had 3 years of telling us how bad leaving the EU would be so it's not surprising that there's a feeling that leave would lose for a second time.
Although I'd have expected the leave vote to have collapsed by now but it seems to have held up pretty well considering.
Well, we have from the remain side, while 'leave' have been allowed to repeat claims of sunlit uplands that were shown to be completely bogus, do this on the media, and get called for another interview to repeat those claims the next day.

It isn't surprising that the Leave vote held, what is surprising is how rarely the claims of 'vote leave' were challenged.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom